alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  Exhibit 4.2    
    


 
 

CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
  OF
  TCF CAPITAL I


        THIS
Certificate of Trust of TCF Capital I (the "Trust") is being duly executed and filed on behalf of the Trust by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a
statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del.C. § 3801 et seq.)
(the "Act"). 


        1.    Name.    The name of the statutory trust formed by this Certificate of Trust is TCF Capital I. 



        2.    Delaware Trustee.    The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust in the State of Delaware are
Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney Square North, 1100 North Market Square, Wilmington, Delaware 19890. 


        3.    Effective Date.    This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing. 



        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section 3811 of the Act. 



							
	 	 	WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not

in its individual capacity but solely as trustee
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	










	 	 	 	 	Name:	 	 
	 	 	 	 	Title:	 	 
	

 	
 	

  





James S. Broucek, as Administrative Trustee
	

 	
 	

  





Christy A. Powers, as Administrative Trustee














QuickLinks



Exhibit 4.2


CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF TCF CAPITAL I
August 4, 1939

No. 41894.

#### Protest 835224-G of Neumann-Endler, Inc.

C. D. 188. Application by plaintiff for rehearing denied.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23
- 20315 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Carlos Rodriguez Gayton,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22
- CR
- 177 - 1

**_____________ _________________**  Before **Elrod, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Rodriguez Gayton has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez Gayton has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 5, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-20315 Document: 00517022651 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2024No. 23
- 20315

2 record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from fu rther responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 23-20315 Document: 00517022651 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2024
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BILLY D. SMITH, Airman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

No. 29,289

July 25, 1975

. *Lieutenant Walter A. Smith, Jr.,*JAGC, USNR, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.

*First Lieutenant Ronald J. Waicukauski,*USMCR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel P. N. Kress,*USMC.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

In accordance with his pleas, the appellant stands convicted by general court-martial of 12 specifications involving the sale, transfer, use and possession of marihuana and lysergic acid diethy-lamide (LSD), and 2 specifications of subornation of perjury in violation of Articles 92 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 892 and 934. We granted review to determine whether the convening authority was disqualified from reviewing and acting upon this case under our decisions in *United States v Chavez-Rey,*23 USCMA 412, 50 CMR 294 (1975); *United States v Sierra-Albino,*23 USCMA 63, 48 CMR 534 (1974); *United States v Dickerson,*22 USCMA 489, 47 CMR 790 (1973); and *United States v White,*10 USCMA 63, 27 CMR 137 (1958).

The facts giving rise to the granted issue are not in dispute. Prior to trial the convening authority granted two prosecution witnesses testimonial immunity pursuant to the advice of the acting staff judge advocate. In view of the appellant’s pleas of guilty these witnesses did not testify prior to findings. However, during the presentencing portion of the trial, pretrial statements of the two witnesses were admitted in evidence. These statements were executed prior to the grant of immunity, and were used by the Government to aggravate the offenses involving the subornation of perjury.

In *United States v White, supra,*and *496its progeny, we noted that a convening authority is precluded from impartially reviewing a case where he has granted immunity to a witness. Whether the evidence relates to findings or an appropriate sentence is of no consequence since the convening authority is charged with the responsibility of acting on both. Article 64, UCMJ, 10 USC §864. Although the appellant was convicted pursuant to his pleas of guilty, statements from witnesses who had been granted immunity were used in a manner detrimental to him. Because the convening authority’s grant of immunity rendered his impartiality suspect with reference to weighing the statements of these witnesses,1 he was disqualified from reviewing this case.

The decision of the US Navy Court of Military Review is reversed and the action of the convening authority is set aside. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for assignment to a different convening authority and staff judge advocate for a new review and action.

Chief Judge FletcheR did not participate in the decision of this case.

1

 While the grant of immunity postdated the execution of the pretrial statements, such a grant still reflects a prejudgment of the convening authority as to the weight of these statements,
# C_2007135EN.01000501.xml

| 19.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/5

---

Calls for proposals under the Cooperation and Capacities work programmes of the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities

(2007/C 135/05)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals under the Cooperation and Capacities work programmes of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007 to 2013).

Proposals are invited for the following calls. Call deadlines and budgets are given in the call texts, which are published on the CORDIS website.

Cooperation Specific Programme:

Theme: Health.

Call Identifier: FP7-HEALTH-2007-B

Capacities Specific Programme:

Part: Research Infrastructures

Call Identifier: FP7-INFRASTRUCTURES-2007-2

These calls for proposals relate to the work programmes adopted by Commission Decisions C(2007) 2460 of 11 June 2007 and C(2007) 2464 of 13 June 2007.

Information on the modalities of the calls, the work programmes, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website:

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls/

---
**Exhibit 15.1 **

** **

**CONSENT OF CUSHMAN& WAKEFIELD ARGENTINA S.A.**

 

We hereby consentto the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form F-20 of Adecoagro S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2015 and any amendmentsthereto (the “Annual Report”) and the references to and information contained in the Cushman & Wakefield ArgentinaS.A. Appraisal of Real Property report dated September 30, 2015 prepared for Adecoagro S.A., wherever appearing in the Annual Report,including but not limited to our company under the heading “Item 4 – Information about the Company” in the AnnualReport.

 

Dated: April 27th,2016

 

 

Cushman &Wakefield Argentina S.A.

 

 

By:/s/ Julio C. Speroni              

Name:Julio C. Speroni

Title:  Valuation Manager
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF E.V., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.J.A., JR., NATURAL

FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 22 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.A., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.J.A., JR., NATURAL

FATHER :

:

:

:

: No. 23 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of March, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
No. 50179.

#### Protests 53777-K, etc., of Artmart Linen Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the ease within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this extent.
Re:Fw:plantoperatingscheduleJohnRegoto:ConradChin05/24/201210:34AM•Cc:BethFriedman,Jeff.McKinney,Gregory.TimmonsHistory:Thismessagehasbeenrepliedtoandforwarded.—Conrad,attachedareEMI’sresponsestoBeth’squestions.Pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeifyouhaveadditionalquestions,andhaveagreatholidayweekend.1.Therearecurrentlynoregularlyscheduledshutdownsoftheplantorofallfurnaces.Theplantcurrentlyisoperational24hoursperday,365daysperyear.2.Thereisnorecollectionofanynon-routineplant-wideshutdowns,norofanyloadreductionsrequestedorrequiredbythepowercompany.JohnRego•Environmental,Health&Safety901LAKESIDEAVENUE•CLEVELAND,OHIO44114DIRECT216.586.7542•FAX216.579.0212.JREGO@JONESDAY.COMFrom:ConradChin<Chin.Conrad©epamail.epa.gov>To:JohnRego<jregoJonesDay.com>Cc:BethFriedman<friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>Date:05/22/201202:49PMSubject:Fw:plantoperatingscheduleJohnfyiBethjustsentoutthisinquirytoEramet.ConradK.ChinMailCodeD243-02MetalsandMineralsGroupSectorPoliciesandProgramsDivisionOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandardsU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency919-541-1512(voice)919-541-3207(fax)ForwardedbyConradChin/RTP/USEPAJUSon05/22/201202:48PMFrom:“BethFriedman”<friedman.beth@ecrweb.com>To:<jeff.mckinney©erametgroup.com>Cc:ConradChin/RTP/USEPNUStEPA,CohnBoswell/RTP/USEPAIUSEPA,JonathanAverbacklDC/USEPA/US@EPADate:05/22/201202:44PMSubject:plantoperatingscheduleHiJeff—Canyoutellmeiftheplanthasanyregularlyscheduledperiodwhenallfurnacesareshutdown?Whataboutwhenallproductionoperationsareshutdown?SayatChristmas?Ifso,whatisthelengthoftheshutdown?Arethereanylessroutineplant-wideshutdowns?Saywhenthepowercompanytellsyoutoshutdowntoconserveelectricity?Howmuchwarningdoyouhaveofsucheventsandhowlongdotheylast?Thanks.BethFriedmanSeniorEnvironmentalScientistEC/RIncorporated501EastowneDrive,Suite250ChapelHill,NC27514(919)433-8237Thise-mail(includinganyattachments)maycontaininformationthatisprivate,confidential,orprotectedbyattorney-clientorotherprivilege.Ifyoureceivedthise-mailinerror,pleasedeleteitfromyoursystemwithoutcopngitandnotifysenderbyreplye-mail,sothatourrecordscanbecorrected.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JASON TOLLEY

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1865

[ August 23, 2017 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Ernest A. Kollra, Jr.

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 92

- 21104CF10B

.

Jason Tolley, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

. See Janvier v. State , 123 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

W ARNER

, T AYLOR and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRIAN ACOSTA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3107

[January 5, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Caroline C. Shepherd, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502018CF001345C.

Thomas Montgomery of Thomas Montgomery, P.A., Belle Glade, for 

appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, DAMOORGIAN and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2007211EN.01002102.xml

| 8.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/21

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2007 — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v 1. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2. Professor Ulrich Knoop

(Case C-304/07)

(2007/C 211/40)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Directmedia Publishing GmbH

Appellant:

Respondents: 1. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2. Professor Ulrich Knoop

Respondents:

Question referred

Can the adoption of data from a database protected in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (database directive) (1) and their incorporation in a different database constitute an extraction within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of that directive even in the case where that adoption follows individual assessments resulting from consultation of the database, or does extraction within the meaning of that provision presuppose the (physical) copying of data?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.

1

---
# C_2007243EN.01000301.xml

| 17.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/3

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/43-44/07

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2007/C 243/03)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competitions: EPSO/AST/43/07 and EPSO/AST/44/07 — Assistants (AST3) of Bulgarian and Romanian nationality in the following fields:

| 1. | European public administration |
| --- | --- |

1.

European public administration

| 2. | Financial management |
| --- | --- |

2.

Financial management

The competition notice is published in English, French and German only, in Official Journal C 243 A of 17 October 2007.

Full details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---
# C_2007155EN.01001101.xml

| 7.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 April 2007 — Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki v Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

(Case C-208/07)

(2007/C 155/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerisches Landessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petra von Chamier-Glisczinki

Appellant:

Respondent: Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse

Respondent:

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 19(1)(a) — in conjunction, as the case may be, with Article 19(2) — of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted in the light of Article 18 EC and Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2), as meaning that an employed or self-employed person, or a member of that person's family, may not receive any cash benefits or reimbursement provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the place of residence, if there is provision under the law applicable to the institution of the place of residence for persons insured by that institution to receive only cash benefits, and not benefits in kind? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 19(1)(a) — in conjunction, as the case may be, with Article 19(2) — of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted in the light of Article 18 EC and Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2), as meaning that an employed or self-employed person, or a member of that person's family, may not receive any cash benefits or reimbursement provided on behalf of the competent institution by the institution of the place of residence, if there is provision under the law applicable to the institution of the place of residence for persons insured by that institution to receive only cash benefits, and not benefits in kind?

1

2

| 2. | If there is no such entitlement to benefits in kind, is there, in the light of Article 18 EC, or Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, any entitlement to payment — subject to prior approval — by the competent institution of the costs of in-patient care in a care home situated in another Member State, in the amount of the benefits payable in the competent Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If there is no such entitlement to benefits in kind, is there, in the light of Article 18 EC, or Articles 39 EC and 49 EC, any entitlement to payment — subject to prior approval — by the competent institution of the costs of in-patient care in a care home situated in another Member State, in the amount of the benefits payable in the competent Member State?

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

1

(2)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9140 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9140

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a report regarding the 
                      effects of mine subsidence.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 25, 2024

 Ms. Budzinski (for herself, Mr. Bost, Mr. Mooney, and Mr. Cartwright) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue a report regarding the 
                      effects of mine subsidence.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPORT REGARDING EFFECTS OF MINE SUBSIDENCE.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
section, the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Deputy 
Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 
shall issue and submit to Congress a report regarding the effects of 
mine subsidence on communities, including--
            (1) the effects mine subsidence has on the economies and 
        welfare of communities; and
            (2) a description of each activity the Department of the 
        Interior is, as of the date of the enactment of this section, 
        carrying out to minimize the risk of mine subsidence to 
        communities.
                                 <all>
```
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 10, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00668

- CR

Javier GARZA

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR3388

The Honorable Angus K. McGinty, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Request to File Paper Filings is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Tice & Lynch, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7501.

Entry No. D 727631.

Invoice dated Wookey Hole, England, November 16, 1945.

Certified November 21, 1945.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 17, 1945.

(Decided January 13, 1948)

*Jordan & Klingaman for*the plaintiff.

Paul *P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

•Kincheloe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2007297EN.01001903.xml

| 8.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/19

---

Order of the Court of 10 July 2007 — AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-461/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 297/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant(s): AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (represented by: T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, Δικηγόρος)

Applicant(s):

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Christoforou and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 in Case T-242/05 AEPI v Commission — Inadmissibility of an application for annulment of a decision of the Commission not to initiate proceedings against the Hellenic Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations

AEPI

Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 356 of 30.12.2006.

1

---